The man and woman were in a relationship. The man purchased the property in which the woman was then living. Subsequently the woman went to live with the man. The original property was sold and a new property was purchased; the woman and the man cohabited in this new property. When the relationship eventually broke down, the woman asserted a beneficial interest in the property. The question for the court was whether the purchase of the original property meant that the woman was beneficially entitled to the proceeds of sale. There was a very high burden of proof in such cases, and the evidence relied on by the woman did not establish that she had acquired a beneficial interest in either the original or the new property.

The husband had an interest in a trust fund. The money had been left in trust by the husband's father to his widow for life, and on her death to four children, including the husband, as tenants in common in equal shares. The trustees were to pay the income to the widow during her lifetime and had power to advance capital to the widow as they saw fit, regarding only her well being and disregarding the interests of other beneficiaries. The issue for the court was whether, and if so to what extent, the husband's interest under the trust was a ' financial resource' that he 'has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future', within Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s 25(2)(a). Held, it was a resource that he was 'likely to have in the foreseeable future' within s 25(2)(a) of the 1973 Act.

Appeal by husband against order granting leave to reopen an ancillary relief order made on the grounds of a supervening Barder event, i.e. the substantial increase in the value of the husband's shareholding. Appeal allowed.

Appeal by local authority against case management decision made in care proceedings whereby the judge refused to permit the instruction of a paediatric pathologist to review the post-mortem carried out on the father's child by a previous relationship - appeal allowed.

The police, supported by the local authority, applied for disclosure of certain documents in the care proceedings, to assist with a criminal investigation into the injuries to the third child. The judge refused disclosure. The case was to be remitted to the county court for further consideration pursuant to the now-applicable rules.

Husband was made bankrupt and his half-interest in the matrimonial home vested in the bankruptcy trustees - husband and wife applied to the court, claiming that the trustees had failed to 'realise' the interest in the property within 3 years under Insolvency Act 1986, s 283A, and that the interest in the property had therefore reverted to the husband - appeal allowed.

Family Proceedings Court made residence order in favour of maternal grandmother - father appealed - High Court reversed decision and made residence order in favour of father - maternal grandmother appealed - Court of Appeal found that judge was not plainly wrong and therefore dismissed the appeal.

Religious ceremony in South Africa did not create a legal marriage as certain formalities were omitted and it was not intended by either of the parties or the officiating official that it would be a legally binding ceremony.

CHILDREN — Care proceedings — Threshold conditions — Children suffering injuries perpetrated by either mother or father — Preliminary hearing to determine facts — Whether judge required to identify perpetrator as one or other parent — Whether same judge to hear remainder of case

Father of two children appealed against findings of fact that he was the perpetrator of injuries suffered by both children and that the mother could be excluded as a perpetrator. Appeal allowed, finding set aside and substituted with finding that neither parent can be excluded as possible perpetrators of the injuries to either child.

Wife sought to enforce post-nuptial settlement whereby she was to retain most of the assets - husband convicted of sexually assaulting grandchildren - either on the basis of the settlement or the court's discretion under MCA s.25 (including the husband's conduct), no further financial provision was to be made for the husband.